[feduzi]

Where did you see all this in my 2 sentence comment?

I never said it is bad to put yourself first. You're free to do whatever you want with your work, because this work is yours. If anyone against they can make an alternative. There's no sum and the choice is huge starting from "you" and ending with "others", pick any point of this range.

[sbuttgereit]

If I misread the intent of your comment then I apologize. But context does matter and in context, your statements carried a fair amount of meaning with little explanation. I don't want to suggest that you said that someone should be forced to release their code; but your short statement seemed to stake a moral claim. A claim I don't see as valid. If I'm wrong, I'd be interested to know what you actually meant.

[feduzi]

What I tried to say is that there's other side of some "people need to eat". But it is up to the author or authors to choose which side to choose (or any point in between). And there's nothing wrong with any choice.

That would be great to have this algorithm open sourced.

And it is sad to see how this went from "Unfortunately not open source" to "people need to eat". Also, please note that this company is $1.37M in sales (http://www.hoovers.com/company-information/company-search.ht...). So it is not about "eat" only.

[vvanders]

Sales != Profit

Even considering lower gamedev salaries that's not a ton of revenue for one of the top middleware companies in an industry. Given east-side salaries I don't know if you could support more than 8-10 people on that revenue.

[sbuttgereit]

I think I still disagree with your ultimate position. But I do thank you for taking the time to respond. I'm upvoting you because, agree or not, you engaged in an honest discussion.